Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Jul 31, 2007 6:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

if the old colonol KFC was one of his sponsors and the "compound" was for cock fights would they have dropped him?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Jul 31, 2007 6:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

That argument makes no sense.

Nike, Reebok, Upperdeck etc., are not in the business of dog fighting or anything related to dogs. They are dropping Vick not--as you correctly point out--because they care so much about cruelty to animals, but b/c they do not want the face of their businesses promoted by and associated with someone who would engage in such a viciously cruel and horrible act BECAUSE they would lose money on people who would not buy their product because of that association.

Vick is therefore paying for his --yes, alleged--actions for both cynical reasons and good reasons: 1) cynical, b/c the companies care about their bottom line, and might drop him as well for less moral reasons, i.e., if he admitted he was gay, and 2) good, because people SHOULD refuse to purchase a product endorsed and promoted by someone who does something as evil and sickening as dog fighting, b/c why should that spokesman get rich off the public's dime when the public abhors what they choose to do with thei free time and gobs of money?

I fail to see what the problem in attacking Vick is here. I in fact defended his right to a fair trial, and support waiting until it's determined whether he did this before denying him future play in the NFL (and he should be barred for life if he's guilt, and jailed for what he did).

Whether companies like Nike exploit workers in Indonesia by paying them 30 cents a day to make shoes is besides the point....(Nike does do this,and as a result, I refuse to buy their shoes; that and the fact that they're overrated and basically suck for someone like myself who has extra wide feet; they never fit me well)...but if you think we're attacking Vick while turning a blind eye to other corporate abuses around the world you're wrong...and two wrongs don't make a right, anyway...why give Vick a "pass"--sorry--just b/c other abuses also go on?

If he was running a dog fighting ring and killing animals that lose by drowning, shocking, or shooting them in the head, he should be treated like the criminal he is for doing so--IF he did it.

Let a jury decide.